The marriage *ceremony *was when she was six, and it was consummated at age nine. :eek: But aren’t we getting pretty far afield from abortion? What does any of this have to do with the analogy I made?
Whatever analogy it was, it can’t be more on point than the idea of forcing a parent to donate blood and/or organs to their child. I figure unless a pro-lifer is prepared to argue in favor of this (and no doubt some are), they don’t have a solid enough foundation for their views.
Then perhaps you shouldn’t have introduced the topic.
I didn’t. It was a parenthetical illustration within a larger sentence.
As for forcing a parent to give blood to their child? Sure. Bone marrow, even. An organ? No. And frankly, it’s an insult to women who have borne children to act as though they are damaged to that degree.
And already “the vast majority of women” who get abortions, do get first-trimester abortions. However, your problem is with the minority of women who abort healthy fetuses who do so in the second trimester.
What you haven’t shown, or even claimed, is that 13 weeks is long enough for essentially all pregnant women to get an abortion if they want one. In the absence of such a showing, your cutoff is arbitrary and capricious - it says to those women who discover their pregnancy on the late side (it happens!) that they’re just SOL because they didn’t become aware of their pregnancy in time, or faced insurmountable obstacles in getting to an abortion clinic before the deadline.
Insult to women, really? You want to play that card?
Anyway, you support some degree of forced biological support, which I can respect for consistency even if the position overall is freedom-antithecal.
Polling is one of those interesting things that does suffer from the observer effect. People look at polls to see what they should believe, how they should feel, then they feed that back in when they are polled.
Combine that with shoddy or even intentionally motivated wording, and you get a situation where polls are doing more to shape public sentiment than they are to measure it.
No, I don’t think so. Why do you want to limit choices and get a less accurate result? That’s not a compromise, that’s just continuing to have the same problem.
You simply present the information. These are the developmental milestones: Heart forms at x weeks, beats at y weeks, detectable at z weeks. Spinal column forms at x[sup]1[/sup] weeks, brain forms at y[sup]1[/sup] weeks, brain activity starts at z[sup]1[/sup] weeks. ETC…
Then ask them what week they would no longer support elective termination.
Simple.
And as to that, I do believe that we shouldn’t have tyrannies of the majority, that taking a right away should be harder than granting it. I think that a super majority, at least 66 if not 75 percent, need to be on board before we start stripping women of their bodily autonomy in the name of public desires.
To be fair, the pro-life side has conceded that “Pro-Life” is an intentionally deceptive label, and that it has nothing to do with a respect for life. It’s no more hypocritical for a “Pro-Lifer” to stop caring about the baby once it has exited the uterus than it is for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to not hold elections.
The reason it’s famous in the USA is because it’s frequently used by people trying to malign the entire religion of Islam. Therefore, if you’re not trying to do that, I’d advise against choosing that for your comparisons.
Kimstu’s dealt with the cite, using basically the same process I used to find the info in the first place. Thanks, Kimstu.
The society as a whole doesn’t even force the blood, though; nor does there seem to be a general movement on attempting to enshrine that into law. I’ll give you personally credit in that direction, though.
One: Frankly, it’s insulting to say that it’s an insult to say somebody’s physically damaged.
Two: Donating, say, a kidney doesn’t usually leave the donor significantly damaged.
Three: While it’s not a guaranteed result of pregnancy, some women do wind up permanently physically impaired; many others are temporarily physically impaired to the point of being hindered in their normal work, or even not being able to do it at all; and anyone who carries to term is going to have some physical effects. Any pregnant woman risks significant damage; and there’s no way of telling for sure in advance – or at 12 weeks – that it won’t happen.
What if you give a kidney to your child with the expectation that he will give it back when he is done with it?
But more seriously, what are the proposed penalties, if any, for a parent who refuses to donate blood or bone marrow to their ailing child? Can the state arrest them, strap them down and extract the material? What if the child dies while the parent is evading or resisting? Is contributing to the death of a child considered more heinous than causing the death of a fetus? Should the penalties for parental refusal to donate biological material leading to a child’s death be as great or greater than getting an abortion? I sense a whole new branch of law developing here.
I’m not proposing that we require parental donations, and I don’t think anyone else using that comparison is doing so either.
What we’re saying is that as we don’t require parental donations to a child that has been born, we should also not require parental donations to a fetus.
The effects of living donations are usually also temporary; and the effects of pregnancy on the woman’s body are not guaranteed to be temporary.
First of all, a woman who has a second trimester abortion is not equivalent to one who never got pregnant at all. So are you really seriously saying that the *average *long term effects on a woman’s health from continuing a second trimester pregnancy vs. terminating it are greater than from donating an organ?
Probably because so few parents would refuse. If there were significant numbers of kids dying because their parents did refuse, I think it likely would become an issue.
Likewise, if second trimester elective abortion were legal but also vanishingly rare (and the current level of about 60,000 per year does not qualify), I doubt that would be a major issue.
Oh? How common do you think the so called “partial birth abortion” procedure is? How common do you think this is done electively? It’s certainly considered frequent enough to be used to justify legislation.
Fair point. Still might be more frequent than parents refusing blood for their children. Mothers especially.
What kind of Democrat signs a heartbeat-ban abortion bill into law?
Even though I hate abortion I so wish they had not done this. Abortion should be kept available with only limited restrictions like age and licensing of clinics.
Granted one side will think any abortions is too many and the other says any restrictions are too many but we have to compromise and live with it.
One who knows how to read polls?
ETA: I suspect he’ll try to play both sides on this issue. To the anti-abortion crowd he’ll say “see I signed your pro-life bill” and to the pro-abortion-rights crowd he’ll say “it doesn’t mean anything anyways because the courts are going to halt the implementation of this bill”. He is, to put it succinctly, a politician.
Why focus on mothers? How many deadbeat dads can we assume are out there, who not only don’t offer financial support, but would be indifferent to a request for medical support? Contrast that to the horrific but virtually unique Kermit Gosnell. Pro-lifers who argue against “partial birth abortions” seem to assume the country is full of Gosnells, instead of recognizing that trying to restrict earlier safer abortions creates the conditions where some women will be driven to seek someone like him.
I’m out to increase the availability of first trimester abortion, so I don’t know why that was directed at me.
A woman can produce no more than one, and a bit, unwanted pregnancies in a year, whereas a man can produce hundreds. Trying to regulate this via controlling women is wrong headed from the get go. I smell misogyny myself.
It would seem fairer if when a man fathers an unwanted pregnancy, and the woman cannot BY LAW pursue an abortion, (ie. six weeks has passed already), then that man is on the hook to, not only financially support his child, but replace the mother’s lost wages as well, until the child is in school. (he is still expected to support the child to adulthood!). And the state pays up front so babies and mothers do not suffer, then THEY recover the money from the man.